1896.] BUTTEBPLOIS OF THE FAMILY HESPBEUDj!. 15 



38. C. (?) HOMEYBEi, Ploetz. 



Tagiades liomeyeri, Ploetz, S. E. Z. vol. xli. p. 307 (1880). 

 Hah. Pundo Ndongo. 



1 do not know this species, but as it is said by the author .to be 

 very near C. galenus, Pabr., I locate it here provisionally. 



39. 0. MOKBEzi, Wallgr. 



Plerygospidea moJceezi, Wallgr. K. Sv. Vet.-Acad. Handl. 1857 ; 

 Lep. llhop. CafEr. p. 54. 



Ilesperia amaponda, Trim. Trans. Eut. Soc. Lend. (3) vol. i. 

 p. 405. 



Nisoniades molceezi, Trim. Ehop. Afr. Aust. vol. ii. p. 316, pi. vi. 



Pteryijospidea Ynokeezi, Trim. Butt. S. Afr. vol. iii. p. 358. 

 Celcenorrhinus mokeezi, Watson, P. Z. S. 1893, p. 50. 

 Hah. Extra-tropical S. Africa. 



40. C. (?) LUBHJjERi, Ploetz. 



Plaslingia lueJideri, Ploetz, S. E. Z. vol. xl. p. 357 (1879)^ 

 vol. xlv. p. 147 (1884). 



Hah. Aburi (Ploetz). 



The figure of this species drawn by Ploetz appears to be a crude 

 representation of a species of Celcenorrhinus, l)ut the statement of 

 Ploetz, that there is a sexual mark or brand upon the primaries, 

 does not agree with this view. I am at a loss, without having the 

 insect before me, to say where it should be located. Mons. 

 Mabille's note upon the drawing of Ploetz, contained in one of 

 bis manuscript comments upon the PJoetzian figures, strikes me as 

 very appropriate, " inihi nan verisimih videtur." 



Teichosembia \ HoU. 



41. T. subolivbsoens, Holl. (Plate V. fig. 15.) 



T. suholivescens, Holl. Ann. & Mag. Nat. Hist. Oct. 1892, p. 294 ; 

 Wats. P. Z. S. 1893, p. 53. 

 Hub. Matabeleland. 



42. T. tbteastigma, Mab. 



OeratricJiia tetrastigma, Mab. C. R. Soc. Ent. Belg. 1891, 

 p. Ixv; Novit. Lepidopt. p. 119, pi. xvi. fig. 8. 



Hah. Interior of Caraeroons (Stnudinger). 



Mons. Mabille refers this species with some doubt to the genus 

 OeratricJiia. With his type before me, I am able to assert that the 

 species is positively congeneric with the type of the genus 

 Trichosemia. It may even prove to be true that the two species 

 are the same, in which case Mons. Mabille's name wiU have 

 priority. There is, however, considerable difference in the colour' 



, . • By a typographical error, printed originally as '' Trkosemeia." ' 



